I confess to not being a reader of too many political discussion 'blogs, and what I'm going to discuss in this essay is probably part of the reason why. If I had to characterize myself according to the taxonomy I will be discussing, I am a problem solver. The thesis of this essay is that the motivations which people claim based on this taxonomy may not be what actually motivates them to behave as they do. I acknowledge G. Richard Shell's Bargaining for Advantage for the taxonomy which is at the heart of this essay.
During the heat of political summers, political 'blogs seem to be dominated by two groups: competitors and avoiders.
The competitors are who you see posting, by and large. The avoiders are the "readership" whom the competitors are supposedly trying to influence by their constant bickering and sniping at each other and each other's views... at least that's the public justification competitors give for their behavior.
However if you look at competitors and listen to them talk you discover certain recurring themes/memes/slogans color their language and mindsets:
Underlying this is the less-expressed truism that they truly enjoy competition as an end in and of itself. It is remarked up on but seldom offered as personal admission (what would be the point?) that competitors get an emotional rush from the competition.
Competitors are interested in winning. Therefore if they lose they don't really care what is left for the "winners".
In terms of the avoiders, also known as the "readership", competitors justify their behavior in several ways.
Since winning is everything and the ends justify the means it is plain to see that they often have little use for facts. They are often correct in their assessment that the avoiders don't either. But that's not the reason for the often content-free nature of their communications: they do it because tactically they think it puts the "other guy" in a bad light and on the defensive.
Competitors rationalize the voluminous nature of their comments (and they comment on everything) as building "social proof". That has got to be the most laughable pretext ever invented. "Social proof" is nothing more than peer pressure with some mass marketing psychology behind it.
In short, look no further for an explanation: competitors behave the way they do because they like to compete.
I chose my words carefully when I said at the outset that the 'blogs are "...dominated by..." these two groups. Although we seldom hear from the avoiders, they serve as a rationalization for the behavior of not only the competitors but for some other cohorts we will visit shortly.
Avoiders' behavior can be characterized by some fairly typical memes as well:
So why do avoiders read 'blogs, anyway? I submit to you that they do so for largely emotional, personal, reasons.
Avoiders will tell you that they are going to quit reading because of all of this "childishness". But they don't!
Avoiders will tell you that they would get more involved "if only"... But they won't!
In a nutshell, avoiders read for emotional reasons, although these reasons have little to do with the emotional reasons put forward by the competitors.
Compromisers and appeasers are the people interested in "the pie". Their actions are based on factual or emotional truths.
Compromisers attempt to "split the pie" optimally based on the facts.
Not surprisingly then they tend to view the competitors as "pie throwers" who are ruining things for everyone.
Compromisers feel some protectiveness towards the avoiders based on their assessment that the competitors are ruining things.
Appeasers attempt to "split the pie" based on the social contract which is often sloganized as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you": if they do the right thing, then others should, too.
Appeasers feel protectiveness towards the avoiders because of what they feel is a common emotional bond.
Both compromisers and appeasers view themselves as the defenders and knowers of the "sacred political/social truth".
Problem solvers are seldom looking at the immediate issue. They seem to come in two varieties.
Some problem solvers are looking for creative solutions, based on facts. Some problem solvers are seeking conflict resolution, based on shared emotional truths. In either case, they want to "change things for the better".
Problem solvers may tell you that they're interested in solving this particular problem because it is "important". But in reality, they solve problems because.. that is what they do.
By and large, the dominant groups are the competitors (because of the volume of their activity) and the avoiders (who provide convenient justification for the actions of so many others).
The other three groups are all seeking a solution to a problem (either within the status quo or by changing it), and fundamental to doing so would be engaging in that human activity which is typically employed to do so: negotiation.
Unfortunately the dominant groups are not interested in negotiation. I don't see that dynamic changing any time soon. Problem solvers need to take a deep breath once in a while and realize that some problems cannot or are not meant to be solved. Compromisers and appeasers need to realize that while their services are needed, 'blogs aren't the place where they're going to have the most impact.